The Executive has determined that the passports it issues should not identify Israel as the place of birth for persons born in Jerusalem. Petitioner seeks relief ... that would countermand that executive judgment. But under the Constitution that is an exercise of the Executive's exclusive recognition power. The Constitution commits that power exclusively to the Executive and neither a court nor the Congress can override that judgment.

In Kawashima v. Holder [transcript, PDF; JURIST report], the court heard arguments to clarify what counts as an aggravated felony for purposes of removing an immigrant from the country. Petitioners Akio and Fusako Kawashima are natives and citizens of Japan who were living in California as lawful permanent residents. Petitioners were charged with, and pleaded guilty to, filing, and aiding and abetting in filing, a false statement on a corporate tax return. An immigration judge concluded that the convictions were "aggravated felonies" within the meaning of 8 USC § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i) [text], ordering petitioners to be removed. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the decision, and it was later upheld [opinion, PDF] by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has reached the opposite conclusion. Several justices were skeptical of petitioners' position that an intentional lie does not necessarily mean an intent to deceive.

Sri Lanka's own laws should, but fail to, provide protection from the torture and ill-treatment which is so often a consequence of arbitrary and incommunicado detention. Enforcement of laws and directives aimed at preventing torture require a clear implementation plan to ensure that all forces responsible for arrests and detentions are aware of and understand these laws and procedures, and that those who breach them are disciplined, including through criminal prosecution in fair trials of those who commit crimes.

Last month, a group of rights organizations and lawmakers urged [JURIST report] Australia to investigate Sri Lankan war crimes and a top ranking official in the Sri Lankan High Commission [official website] in Canberra for war crimes that were allegedly committed by the Sri Lankan Navy during its fight against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in 2009. Earlier in October, the Sri Lankan government announced that it would adopt a five-year action plan [JURIST report], the National Action Plan for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights, which would take effect immediately. This announcement was in response to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon's inquiry [JURIST report] to the UN Human Rights Council [official website] to evaluate the alleged claims found within a report [text, PDF] that accused the Sri Lankan government of committing war crimes during the final stages of the conflict with the LTTE in 2009. The report was released in April of this year stating [JURIST report] that it found some credible evidence of the alleged war crimes.

Tymoshenko's trial resumed at the end of September after a two-week recess [JURIST reports]. In August, the Kiev Appeals Court refused Tymoshenko's appeal of her detention for contempt charges [JURIST reports]. Also in August, Judge Rodoin Kireyev rejected a request [JURIST report] from Tymoshenko to release her from prison. In July, the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) [official website, in Ukrainian] announced that they are launching a criminal investigation [JURIST report] into UESU, an energy company at one time headed by Tymoshenko. In June, Tymoshenko filed a complaint [JURIST report] with the ECHR alleging violations of the European Convention of Human Rights [text, PDF]. The complaint argued that the charges against Tymoshenko are politically engineered by current Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych [official website, in Ukrainian], Tymoshenko's political rival. Tymoshenko's government was dissolved in March 2010 after she narrowly lost the presidential election to Yanukovych. Tymoshenko had alleged that widespread voter fraud allowed Yanukovych to win the election.

[T]his Court concludes that the plaintiffs have demonstrated: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that they will suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief; (3) that neither the Government, nor the public, will suffer any comparable injury as a result of the relief sought; and (4) that the public's interest in the protection of its First Amendment rights against unconstitutionally compelled speech will be, in fact, furthered.

In July, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit [official website] heard oral arguments [JURIST report] in the tobacco advertising case, Discount Tobacco City & Lottery v. USA [Justia backgrounder], on which the FDA has relied. The Sixth Circuit has not yet issued an opinion on the case. In 2009, US President Barack Obama [official website] signed the FSPTCA into law [JURIST report], granting the FDA certain authority to regulate tobacco products. The legislation heightens warning-label requirements, prohibits marketing "light cigarettes" as a healthier alternative and allows for the regulation of cigarette ingredients. The bill gives the FDA authority to regulate tobacco products but does not permit the agency to regulate tobacco leaf that is not in the hands of tobacco product manufacturers or producers of tobacco leaf, including tobacco growers, tobacco warehouses and tobacco grower cooperatives. Cigarettes and other tobacco products have been subject to strict marketing regulations on both the federal and state levels.

In Magner v. Gallagher [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the court will determine whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act [text], and, if so, whether they should be analyzed under a burden shifting approach, a balancing test, a hybrid approach or some other test. There is a split among the circuit courts over which standard to apply. Respondents are rental property owners who argue that the petitioners violated the Fair Housing Act by "aggressively enforcing" the local housing code. The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment for petitioners, allowing the disparate impact claim [opinion, PDF].

Also Monday, the court denied certiorari in the appeal of Duane Buck, a convicted murderer in Texas. Justice Antonin Scalia ordered a stay of execution [JURIST report] in September pending a determination on whether to grant certiorari in the case. Buck was not arguing his innocence, but rather improper practices during his sentencing hearing. A clinical psychiatrist testified that Buck, a black man, was more likely to commit another crime due to his race, and thus should be given the death penalty. Justice Samuel Alito issued a statement respecting the denial of certiorari, joined by Scalia and Justice Stephen Breyer. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, saying this death sentence was "marred by racial overtones and a record compromised by misleading remarks and omissions made by the State of Texas in the federal habeas proceedings below."

The court also issued two per curiam decisions Monday. In KPMG v. Cocchi [opinion, PDF], the court vacated and remanded a decision on arbitration. In Bobby v. Dixon [opinion, PDF], the court reversed a lower court ruling that had overturned respondent's murder conviction.

Last month, the ETA announced a cessation of all armed activities, but the Spanish government continues to actively pursue charges against ETA leaders. In September, the Spanish National Court sentenced a former Basque separatist to 10 years in prison [JURIST report] for terrorism and trying to resurrect a banned political wing of ETA. In March 2010, the court sentenced a former Basque separatist party leader to two years in prison for promoting terrorism [JURIST report]. Earlier that week, the court accused the Venezuelan government [JURIST report] of aiding ETA in a plot to assassinate members of the Colombian government in Spain. In February 2010, the Interior Ministry of Spain said that it took into custody [JURIST report] the suspected ETA leader, along with two other people who are believed to be senior members of the group. Spanish Judge Fernando Grande-Marlaska ruled [JURIST report] a month earlier that ETA had tried three times to assassinate former Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar in 2001 but had failed. In June 2009, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) upheld [JURIST report] Spain's ban of Basque political groups Batasuna and Herri Batasuna for their alleged ties to ETA.

The current charges against Sanchez stem from a lengthy investigation lead by Jean-Louis Bruguiere [BBC profile], a French investigating judge. In May 2007, French officials raised the possibility of charging [JURIST report] Sanchez for the bombings. He was eventually formally charged, but a court date was not set until this year. In July 2006, the appeals chamber of the European Court of Human Rights [official website] in Strasbourg rejected an appeal [JURIST report] from Sanchez claiming that the eight years he spent in solitary confinement in a French prison was a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights [text, PDF]. The appeals chamber ruled [JURIST report] that Sanchez' solitary confinement was not inhumane or otherwise violative of his rights.